- Email: [email protected]
Physical access to periodical literature: The dilemma revisited and a brief look at the future
PHYSICAL ACCESS TO PERIODICAL LITERATURE: THE DILEMMA REVISITED AND A BRIEF LOOK AT THE FUTURE
Glenda Ann Thornton INTRODUCTION
Thornton is associate director for library services, Auraria Library, University of Colorado at Denver.
- - PHYSICAL ACCESS TO PERIODICAL LITERATURE - -
The debate over how periodical collections are best organized has simmered since at least the 1940s. Unfortunately, experience does not confirm Joseph Borden's statement in 1965 that "the average librarian today does not encounter the problem of whether or not to classify periodicals. The decision will have been made, probably years before the current librarian came on the job..1 In Texas, a considerable amount of time has been invested in this issue throughout the 1980s in an effort to provide the best physical access to periodical collections. In 1988 Robert H. Chang, director of library services at the University of Houston-Downtown, surveyed the practices of all 33 state university libraries in Texas. 2 He found that 15 libraries classified their periodical collections (including one then in the process of changing to classification) and 18 did not. Of the 15 with classified arrangements, 5 had switched to classification sometime within the 1980s. The University of North Texas is one of the 18 institutions in Texas with an alphabetically arranged periodical collection; its collection consists of 309,579 volumes representing 14,797 titles. These volumes are divided into three main periodical collections, which are housed in two of the three libraries on campus. These collections consist of a science, technology, and library and information science collection housed in one building and a general periodical collection and
WINTER 1991
33
a music periodical collection housed in another building. In the fall of 1989, some of the public service librarians at the University of North Texas proposed to the Libraries' administration that the Libraries' periodical collections be classified and integrated with other classified materials. This proposal was prompted not only because of the trend in Texas to switch to classified collections, but also in recognition of longterm problems in locating materials. Classification was offered not only as a solution to these problems but also as a better system of periodical organization. Due to vocal objection to this proposal by other librarians, an ad-hoc committee, composed of supporters of both classified and alphabetical arrangements, was formed to study the feasibility and practicality of periodical classification as well as to suggest alternate solutions for improving user access. THE COMMITTEE'S GOALS Initially, the committee reviewed the access problems that were attributed to the alphabetical arrangement of the periodical collections. These problems were thought to be caused mainly by incomplete conversion to AACR2, title changes, and a decision in the early 1970s to remove the wooden shelf dummies that had existed to assist patrons in locating periodicals (done to save vanishing shelf space). The committee expanded its charge to include a review of periodical organization, identification of the issues, impacts, and costs of a classification project, as well as identification of alternate solutions. The committee then searched the literature for supporting documentation.
THE LITERATURE ON PERIODICAL ORGANIZATION
Since at least the 1940s and for awhile after the publication of AACR2 in 1978, the literature on periodical organization focused upon the merits of alphabetically arranged collections versus classified shelf arrangement. Following the adoption of AACR2, much of the emphasis moved to the effects of the new rules upon alphabetically arranged collections. Little of this literature was based upon research. In 1940 Muller listed the advantages of classification as providing a rough subject arrangement (thought important for non-indexed periodicals), providing a unique place for each volume thereby making shelfreading and reshelving less complicated and more accurate, solving the problems of title changes, and making easier possible future collection reorganiza34
SERIALSREVIEW
tions.3 Muller identifiedthe disadvantages of classification as additional work for both library staff and patrons, indicating that the best solution dependedupon the size of the collection, the type of material (how much indexed vs. non-indexed), and the patience of the library's patrons. This was countered later in 1940 by Prevost, who reported that the Newark, New Jersey Public Library was abandoning classification after 50 years because the class number was so vague as to be of little use. 4 Prevost maintained that indexes were the key to periodical literature, with more indexing a better solutionthan classification, and suggested that journals should be shelved by each successive title, as listed in indexes, not kept together under ancient titles. In 1949 Fussier advocated the "careful observation of the actual literature requirements of research personnel in various disciplines''5 and reported on his study of the use of research literature in chemistry and physics. In a second article, Fussier presented the implications of his research for librarians. 6Because of their importance, serials should be made "as readily available as possible in physical location within the library ''7 with adequate indexing and abstracting facilities provided. He found that"subject classification does not bring together the material required by research personnel in either chemistry or physics "8 and suggested that similar investigations should be conducted for other disciplines. In a detailed abstract of Simpkins' thesis in Serial Slants in 1952, the serials organization of the Linda Hall Library, founded in 1945, was described. 9 The collection was arranged alphabetically by current title with no attempt to keep volumes together when titles changed. This arrangement was based upon the conclusion that, except for very broad subject groupings, subject classification of serial titles had little value. However, Whetstone's 1959 survey of serial practices of 16 university libraries, with collections between 4,000 and 6,000 titles, found that 12 classified all periodicals, two classified some titles, and two classified none of their titles.i° The first real effort to debate the advantages and disadvantages ofclassifiedperiodicalsversusalphabetical arrangement was made by Borden. 11The advantages of an alphabetical arrangement were listed as less costly processing, ease of working with an alphabetical shelf list, and quicker retrieval because call numbers did not have to be identified and periodicals were not scattered among other classified materials. The problems caused by title changes and titles beginning with generic terms such as "bulletin," "proceedings, .... transactions," and "journal of .... " were listed as major disadvantages. Classification was touted as solving shelving problems created by title changes, scattering periodicals with similar titles thus preventing confusion, and providing -- GLENDAANN THORNTON
some subject access to non-indexed periodicals. The disadvantages were listed as increased processing cost, possibly increased time needed for locating materials, and, if integrated with book collections, the increased quantity of materials to shift to accommodate serial growth. Borden ended by asserting that the needs of the individual library's users should be an important factor in determining the method of organization. To supplement Borden's article, PiersonTMoffered additional discussion on periodical organization, includingthe merits of collocation of current and bound periodical volumes, the problems of dealing with serials such as symposia, annual reports, and proceedings, and the physical arrangement of microforms. Pierson introduced the idea that research libraries may have a greater need for classified collections while alphabetical organization might better serve lower levels of libraries. After summarizing the work of Borden, Pierson, Whetstone, and others, Kuhn13 stated that "in the case of the research library, I think librarians could agree that the greater the number of scholarly periodicals, the greater the percentage of periodicals capable of fairly specific classification and thus capable of being shelved closer together."14 From this assumption, he concluded that "in the larger library there will be a greater number of periodicals not indexed in the currently available indexingmedia" and, since a greater number of other serials would already be classified, "the user of the research library will probably find the collection more serviceable if it is classified." 1~ In 1978 Davidson stated that the most frequent method of periodical organization was alphabetical by title and that it was the method most favored by patrons. 16 Wright's study of 147 moderate-sized, academic libraries found alphabetical arrangement of bound and current periodical collections the most common. 17 She reported that, while libraries with alphabetical collections were more likely to switch to classified arrangement (15 libraries indicated a switch from alphabetical arrangement), four libraries had switched from call number order to alphabetical. She found a positive correlation between size of holdings and the use of classification for periodicals, with larger collections more likely to be classified. Smith provided in her 1978 article persuasive arguments for the classification of periodicals, concluding that classification seemed to be winning and that librarians were realizing the greater need for classification for higher level library use) 8 Roth agreed that Smith had valid points for classification of serials, but stated that "these points are truly insignificant when compared with the tremendous inconvenience caused to serious researchers by a classified collection."19 Roth provided a list of procedures for science librarians to - - PItYSmAL ACCESS TO PERIODICAL LITERATURE - -
follow to improve physical access to periodical collections. In 1980 Muffin reported the results of her research study on patron success in retrieving periodicals from an alphabetically arranged periodical collection of 8,000 subscriptions. 2° She found that 61 percent of the subjects in her study failed to find at least one of five citations. Increased public service for serials was suggested as one of several remedies. Pinzelik described at least 24 possible decisions that a patron might need to make in order to locate serials in a large collection (regardless of organization) and suggested six ways a library might improve physical access, including better bibliographic instruction, shelf dummies, and the availability of serial specialists. 21 Kovacic reviewed the arguments both for and against classification of serials and discussed the role of indexing and abstracting services in accessing periodical literature) 2 She pointed out that, while effective, they are not integrated into the mainstream manual ~ o n l i n e catalogs. As a result, she reported that some libraries actually catalog individual periodical articles of interest to their users. In 1986 McBride reviewed again the arguments concerning periodical organization and reported that "it is generally agreed that while smaller libraries can avoid classifying and the costs involved, larger libraries will probably have to classify. ''2a
AACR2
AND S E R I A L S O R G A N I Z A T I O N
After 1978, much of the literature on serials highlighted the problems of alphabetically arranged collections caused by the cataloging rule changes. Bibliographically, AACR2 replaced complex corporate main entries for serials with more straightforward title main entries as well as providing for alternate access points. Although expensive to implement, after the Library of Congress and a number of the major bibliographic utilities adopted AACR2, few libraries could afford not to implement the new standard. 24 However, libraries with alphabetically arranged periodical collections, the very type of shelf arrangement that the new rules would improve, found themselves facing a dilemma. "It is one thing to shift a lot of catalog cards around and another to have to re-mark and relocate a large number of bound volumes. Anything less, however, was perceived to be a real disservice to library users. Alphabetical arrangements lost much of their user friendliness when old titles were left under AACR corporate headings."25 This problem as well as others began to grow as the pace of serial publishing exploded. Old standard titles split into multiple titles. Title changes seemed to WINTER 1991
35
become more frequent as publishers modernized their products' market appeal. Subject specialties seemed to spring up over night leading to yet more new titles. Indexing and abstracting services grew in relationship to the growth in periodical literature. Unfortunately for libraries, the producers of some of these indexes did not use standard cataloging rules for determining bibliographic entries. Williams and Lannom reported that for 11 selected journals in eight DIALOG files there were 189 forms of the 11 titles. 26In many large libraries with titles in the thousands and volumes in the hundreds of thousands, alphabetical arrangements were breaking down and frequently the remedy selected was the classification of periodical collections.27 During the late 1970s and 1980s, computers and automationbegan to consume the energies and interests of many librarians and the debate over the physical arrangement ofperiodicalcoliections gradually evolved into a more general call for improved access to periodical literature. 2s However, it is obvious that the issue of physical organization has never been fully researched or resolved.
be done after all titles were classified? If a massive reshelving project was preferred, should Bibliographic Control refrain from labeling all 309,000+ volumes until time for the reshelving project? .
Would the call number on the spine consist of only the classification number (which is easy to mass produce) or would it also include volume and year? If volume or year were not included, it would be important not to cover this information on spines--which might result in the placement of labels on spines at varying heights from the bottom of the volumes, primarily an aesthetic consideration.
.
Would current issues be classified or arranged alphabetically in current periodical areas?
.
Should spine title corrections (resulting from cataloging rule changes) even be made? If so, should titles be corrected as volumes moved through processing, or could the project be completed without moving volumes until time for reshelving?
.
How would titles be handled when classification would relocate them to other collections?
8.
How would periodicals in microform be handled?
9.
How would this project be staffed?
ISSUES AND
IMPACTS OF A CLASSIFICATION PROJECT
When applied to the University of North Texas Libraries, little of this information was helpful in determining whether or not the periodical collections should be classified. The most consistent advice was that a library should examine its own situation before selecting a periodical shelving solution. Because of the size of the University Libraries' collections and with so little evidence as to the benefits of classification, no recommendation could be made without examination of costs, public relations impact, human resource requirements, impact on current workload, future technological advances, and alternate solutions. Before adequate costs or impacts could be estimated for classifying periodicals at the University of North Texas, it was determined that the following decisions would need to be made: .
.
3.
36
Would the classification project begin with the "A" titles and continue through the "Z"s ? Or would each separate collection be processed one at a time? Would periodical titles be integrated with other materials or retained in separate periodical collections? If integrated, would periodicals be reshelved as classified, or would a massive reshelving project SERIALSREVIEW
a. b.
c.
Could a special project crew be hired? If a special crew could not be hired, how much time could Bibliographic Control feasibly devote to this project? How would this affect the cataloging of new periodicals, monographic series, and other continuations? How long would the project take given this approach and how would this time frame affect other decisions? How would the cost of supplies and labor affect other library priorities such as retrospective conversion?
10. Should users be surveyed concerning their preferences? ESTIMATED COSTS OF A CLASSIFICATIONPROJECT Every effort was made to accurately estimate the costs of a classification project based upon the most likely set of assumptions. These estimates were corn- - GLENDA ANN THORNTON
Sidebar 1: N A S I G Q U E S T I O N N A I R E
CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE 1.
.
IS YOUR LIBRARY'S PERIODICAL COLLECTION ARRANGED: A. Alphabetically by title?
YES
NO
B. By Classification Number?
YES
NO
A.
IF ALPHABETICAL, DO YOU PLAN TO CLASSIFY THE PERIODICAL COLLECTION? YES NO
B.
IF THERE ARE NO PLANS, ARE THERE PRESSURES TO CLASSIFY THE PERIODICAL COLLECTION? YES NO
3.
IF CLASSIFIED, DO YOU PLAN TO SWITCH TO AN ALPHABETICAL ARRANGEMENT? YES NO
4.
IF CLASSIFIED, ARE YOUR SERIALS INTER-SHELVED WITH MONOGRAPHS? YES NO
.
ARE YOUR BOUND ISSUES AND CURRENT ISSUES SHELVED (FILED) BY THE SAME LOCATION SCHEME? (CIRCLE LETTER) A. BOTH CLASSIFIED
B. BOTH ALPHABETICAL
C. CURRENT ALPHABETICAL, BOUND CLASSIFIED
D. OTHER
.
ARE RECENT YEARS (LAST 5-10 YEARS) SHELVED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN OTHER OLDER VOLUMES (OLDER THAN 10 YEARS)? YES NO
.
ARE THERE VARIATIONS IN SHELVING ARRANGEMENTS ON YOUR CAMPUS? (EX. MAIN LIBRARY CLASSIFIED, BRANCH LIBRARIES ALPHABETICAL, ETC.) YES NO
8.
.
ARE YOU CURRENTLY PURCHASING ANY ELECTRONIC JOURNALS? A.
ONLINE DELIVERY?
YES
NO
B.
OTHER FORMAT: FLOPPY, ETC.?
YES
NO
ARE YOU PROVIDING ARTICLE-LEVEL ACCESS TO PERIODICALS VIA YOUR ONLINE SYSTEM? YES NO
pared to the experiences of another Texas academic library where the decision to classify had been made in 1982. Based upon the assumptions and the comparison, it was estimated that completing the basic project (excluding reshelving) would take at least three years, if 50 hours per week were devoted to the project. P I t Y S I C A L ACCESS TO P E m O D I C A L L I T E R A T U R E - -
Assuming three years at 50 hours per week, the basic project would require at least 7,500 hours. Labor and supplies were estimated at approximately $100,000. When these estimates were presented to the Libraries' administration, it was determined that this project
WINTER 1991
37
would not be funded. This decision necessitated a closer look at the alternate solutions.
ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS FOR IMPROVING ACCESS TO PERIODICALS
As charged, the committee presented a set of alternate solutions. No attempt was made to compute the cost of these suggestions: .
Reinstate a system of shelf dummies indicating correct shelving location for titles shelved contrary to what patrons and library staff members might expect. Assign responsibility for creating and maintaining this system to appropriate unit.
.
Identify titles causing problems and find individual solutions. Patrons, public service staff, and interlibrary loan are all sources for determination of problem titles.
.
Hold in-house seminars for librarians and staff members to update them on serials cataloging rules and interpreting the serials records in the online catalog. Maintain a bibliographic instruction program for library patrons.
.
Develop printed guides for abstracting and indexing tools listing indexed subscriptions owned by the library. These guides could include location information as specific as building, building level, and stack numbers.
.
Use the online catalog to help solve location problems initially by adding "shelved as" notes. Explore other ways of providing location and access information in the automated system.
.
Capture classification information as subscriptions are received and cataloged or when updated due to other bibliographic work such as recording title changes, should classification become feasible in the future.
.
Determine how each specific collection at the institution might best be arranged. Some collections might benefit from classification, while others would be better served arranged alphabetically by title.
38
SERIALS REVIEW
IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS
Since the charge of the original committee was primarily to examine the feasibility of a classification project, the alternate solutions were not initially studied in detail. However, because a classification project was not approved, several of the alternate solutions were acted upon immediately and others were assigned to another ad-hoc committee charged with a thorough examination of ways to improve the alphabetical organization of the periodicals collections. The suggestion for the development of printed guides with the location of indexed titles and the suggestion that each collection might benefit from a different organization were vetoed. The University of North Texas is currently implementing the VTLS Serials Control Module and immediate attention was given to adding "shelved as" notes to the online public access catalog. In-house seminars were developed for staff members to instruct them in the interpretation of the serials records in the online catalog. Titles identified by the public service librarians as the most difficult to locate were addressed on an individual basis. The subsequent ad-hoc committee has also recommended a systematic conversion of all serial cataloging records to AACR2 rules and is currently working out the related workflows. So far, no effort has been made to assess the effect these changes have made upon physical access to the Libraries' periodical collections.
NASIG WORKSHOP DEVELOPED TO GENERATE IDEAS Because there are so few ideas on improving physical access to periodical collections other than through classification, this topic was proposed and accepted as a workshop for the Fifth Annual NASIG Conference held in 1990. The three main objectives for the workshop were 1) to share information about the University of North Texas experience, 2) to solicit additional ideas for improving physical access to periodical collections, and 3) to find out what other libraries were doing. The workshop was given twice, with a total of 105 attending. An easy-to-complete questionnaire was distributed at the beginning of each workshop (see sidebar 1). The questionnaire was designed to stimulate discussion as well as to determine how other libraries were managing their periodical collections. The results were collected, tabulated, and shared during each workshop. When the questionnaire results were combined and retabulated for this article, six institutions were identified that had multiple participants. These individuals were subsequently contacted and the - - GLFA'DAANN THORNTON
duplicate responses were removed. The questionnaire and the adjusted tabulated results are discussed below and displayed in sidebar 2. QUESTIONNAIRE
RESULTS
Although the questionnaire was never intended as a statistical representation of library practice, the interest in the workshop topic led to an examination of the registration list. Of the 105 individuals registered for the workshop, 90 individuals represented college and university libraries, four represented public libraries, and six others represented subscription agents, publishers, or special libraries. According to the 19901991 American LibraryDirectory, 31 of these libraries have fewer than 4,000 current periodical titles, 20 have collections between 4,001 and 9,999 titles, 30 have collectionsbetween 10,000 and 24,999 titles, and seven have collections of 25,000 or more titles. Eighty-seven participants completed questionnaires, but a total of seven duplicated responses were subsequently removed, leaving 80 useable, completed questionnaires. Of those 80 completed questionnaires, 41 percent indicated their libraries currently have alphabetically arranged periodical collections, 53 percent have classified collections, and 6 percent use both methods. Of those with alphabetical collections, 55 percent are currently planning to switch to a classified arrangement. However, of the five libraries with both systems in use, four report no plans or pressure to classify the entire periodical collection. Of the 15 libraries with alphabetical collections but no plans to classify, eight reported pressure to do so. No library reported current plans to switch from a classified arrangement to alphabetical. However, one respondent indicated that a switch from a classified to an alphabetical arrangement had recently occurred and another indicated that his institution's branch librarians were pressuring the central cataloging department to de-classify branch periodicals. The remaining questions dealt with various shelving arrangements and indicated a wide variety of methods. In some cases the answers do not add up to the totals reported earlier--presumably representing multiple methods at the same institution. For example, while 42 libraries reported having classified collections, 28 reported that these titles were integrated with monographs, 18 reported that they were not, and four reported mixed methods. Additionally, for those 42 libraries with classified collections, 25 of them continued to shelve current issues alphabetically. Thirty-two reported variations in shelving methods at their own institutions and 19 reported that volumes more than ten years old were separated from current titles and shelved in other locations or in remote storage. - - PHYSICAL ACCESS TO PERIODICAL LITERATLmlg - -
The final questions concerned some current trends in serials librarianship. These questions were included to evoke comment from workshop participants on how future developments might affect organization of periodical collections. Six libraries indicated that they are purchasing online electronic journals while 16 reported purchasing electronicjournals in other formats. Thirteen are providing article-level access to periodicals via their online systems and two reported having or planning for the CARL "UNCOVER" database.
WORKSHOP IDEAS FOR IMPROVING
PHYSICAL ACCESS TO PERIODICALS Workshop participants suggested the following ideas for improving physical access to periodical collections: 1) increase public service to periodicals, perhaps relocating the serials department so that it would be responsible for this function, 2) create a current is'Sue reading room, which might include everything up to three years old, 3) add building level and stack numbers to existing periodical holdings lists, 4) add more location notes to online catalogs, and 5) use different colored classification labels to help library staff quickly move used materials back to the proper location and also to help librarians explain to patrons which items are periodicals (usually non-circulating) and which are monographs. While all are valid and important points, it is striking that none of these ideas are particularly innovative or new. As the review of the literature on periodical organization has demonstrated, many of these suggestions have been around for fifty years; however, almost no research has been conducted to verify that any of these ideas are beneficial! THE FtrrURE Was the decision not to classify the periodical collection at the University of North Texas shortsighted? Since it is apparent that neither organizational scheme solves all of the problems of accessing periodical literature and no evidence exists to prove the superiority of either scheme, this author thinks not. Perhaps this rather old stalemate simply must await further research as well as technological innovations. Fortunately, a number of encouraging developments may eliminate the need for any library to consider switchingfrom one shelving scheme to another in the near future. These innovations also increase the options for improving bibliographic as well as physical access to periodicals. A number of these initiatives are aimed at providing electronic storage and retrieval opWINTER 1991
39
Sidebar 2: COMBINED RESPONSES TO JUNE 1990 NASIG WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE
.
IS YOUR LIBRARY'S PERIODICAL COLLECTION ARRANGED: A. Alphabetically by title? YES--33 B. By Classification Number? YES--42* (*Includes one that was then switching to classified) C.
.
A.
Both Systems in Use
YES--5
IF ALPHABETICAL, DO YOU PLAN* TO CLASSIFY THE PERIODICAL COLLECTION? (*maybe, under serious investigation, etc.) YES--18 If both systems were in use (usually main library classified, some branches alphabetical), librarians reported the following: NO PLANS, NO PRESSURE TO CLASSIFY. . . . . . 4 NO PLANS, PRESSURES EXIST TO CLASSIFY--1
B.
IF THERE ARE NO PLANS, ARE THERE PRESSURES TO CLASSIFY THE PERIODICAL COLLECTION? YES--8 (Of these 8, 2 indicated the pressure was internal [from technical services] and 1 indicated both pressure for and against this project.)
3.
IF CLASSIFIED, DO YOU PLAN TO SWITCH TO AN ALPHABETICAL ARRANGEMENT? One respondent indicated a switch from classified to alphabetical occurred the previous year; another that some branch librarians at their institution were pressuring central cataloging to de-elassify periodicals.
.
IF CLASSIFIED, ARE YOUR SERIALS INTER-SHELVED WITH MONOGRAPHS? YES--28 NO---18 MIXED METHODS--4* (*Mainly institutions with main library and branches)
40
.
ARE YOUR BOUND ISSUES AND CURRENT ISSUES SHELVED (FILED) BY THE SAME LOCATION SCHEME? A. BOTH CLASSIFIED--17 B. BOTH ALPHABETICAL--32 C. CURRENT ALPHABETICAL, BOUND CLASSIFIED--25 D. OTHER-3
.
ARE RECENT YEARS (LAST 5-10 YEARS) SHELVED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN OTHER OLDER VOLUMES (OLDER THAN 10 YEARS)? YES--19 NO---48 SELECTED TITLES ONLY---ll NO RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
SERIALSREVIEW
-- GLENDA ANN
THORNTON
7.
.
.
ARE THERE VARIATIONS IN SHELVING ARRANGEMENTS ON YOUR CAMPUS? (EX. MAIN LIBRARY CLASSIFIED, BRANCH LIBRARIES ALPHABETICAL, ETC.) YES--32 NO---47 N/A-- 1 ARE YOU CURRENTLY PURCHASING ANY ELECTRONIC JOURNALS? A. ONLINE DELIVERY? YES--6 B. OTHER FORMAT: FLOPPY, ETC.? YES--16 ARE YOU PROVIDING ARTICLE-LEVEL ACCESS TO PERIODICALS VIA YOUR ONLINE SYSTEM? YES--13 PLANNING FOR OR HAVE CARL ACCESS-- 2
tions for periodical literature. One of the first, the ADONIS project, was initiated "by four individual publishers of major scientific, technical and medical journals" as a "trial document delivery service" that "supplies articles from over 200 biomedical journals published in 1987 and 1988 on CD-ROM."29 University Microfilms has developed a similar CD-ROM product, Business Periodicals Ondisc, that is also a full-text database of articles from about 300 business and management journals. 3° As publishers and librarians gain experience with full-text electronic storage and retrieval, no doubt many new products and developments will be forthcoming. Librarians are responsible for one of the most exciting recent innovations. The Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries, or CARL, has developed and begun to market the "UNCOVER" database, which currently provides article-level "access to over 500,000 articles from over 7,500 journal titles."31 Plans are underway to develop full-text retrieval with greatly improved document delivery options. This database is available on a subscription basis to other libraries. Complimenting these developments, Sheila Intner, associate professor of library and information science at Simmons College, has proposed that individual journal volumes be treated as monographic units with bibliographic access provided for authors and titles of important articles, editors, column editors, and other elements considered important to individual institutions? 2 As she points out, some studies show that as much as 93 percent of library use in some disciplines is journal literature--rather than monographic materials, which receive much more detailed cataloging. Intner calls this idea dumping the "Title Theory" of serials cataloging and replacing it with the "One Work Equals One Bibliographic Unit Theory. ,,33Intner believes that the reward for adopting such a paradigm would be to achieve maximum use of existing collections)4
- -
PHYSICALACCESSTO PERIODICALLITERATURE--
CONCLUSION Perhaps those libraries with subscriptions in the thousands could better spend their limited resources to improve access to periodical literature by investing in these new technologies rather than by reprocessing already processed materials. Article-level access, unbundled periodicals, and improved document delivery capability may indeed solve the dilemma of how best to organize periodical literature. Librarians will, however, find challenge in a new dilemma that approaches on the horizon. We must soon face the tough question of whether or not improved access will replace the need for ownership!
NOTES 1. Joseph C. Borden, "The Advantages and Disadvantages of a Classified Periodicals Collection," Library Resources and Technical Services 9 (Winter 1965): 126. 2. Robert H. Chang, " T h e Handling of Periodical Collections in Texas State University Libraries" (A Survey Conducted by University of Houston-Downtown, 1988), 2-3. 3. Hans Muller, "Why Classify Periodicals?" Wilson Library Bulletin 14 (June 1940): 758-59. 4. Marie Prevost, "Why Classify Periodicals?" Wilson Library Bulletin 15 (September 1940): 85. 5. Herman H. Fussier, "Characteristics of the Research Literature Used by Chemists and Physicists in the United States [Part I]," Library Quarterly 19 (January 1949): 20. 6. Herman H. Fussier, "Characteristics of the Research Literature Used by Chemists and Physicists in the United States, Part II," Library Quarterly 19 (April 1949): 119-43. WINTER 1991
41
7.
Fussier, 137.
8.
Fussier, 137.
9. Edgar G. Simpkins, A Study of Serials Processing (MS in LS thesis, Western Reserve University, 1951), abstracted in Serials Slants 2, no. 1 (January 1952): 6-17. 10. Gloria Whetstone, "Serials Practices in Selected College and University Libraries," Library Resources & Technical Services 5 (Fall 1961): 284-90. 11. Borden, 122-26. 12. Robert M. Pierson, "Where Shall We Shelve Bound Periodicals? Further Notes, "Library Resources & Technical Services 10 (Summer 1966): 290-94. 13. Warren B. Kuhn, "Service," in Serial Publications in Large Libraries, ed. by Walter C. Allen. (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science, 1970). 14. Kuhn, 181. 15. Kuhn, 181. 16. Donald E. Davidson, The Periodical Collection, 2d ed. (Boulder: Westview Press, 1978). 17. Geraldine M. Wright, "Current Trends in Periodical Collections," College and Research Libraries 38 (May 1977): 234-40. 18. Lynn S. Smith, "To Classify or Not to Classify," Serials Librarian 2 (Summer 1978): 371-85. 19. Dana Lincoln Roth, "To Classify or Not to Classify...A Rejoinder," Serials Librarian 5 (Fall 1980): 83.
22. Ellen Siegel Kovacie, "Serials Cataloging: What It Is, How It's Done, Why It's Done That Way," Serials Review 11, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 77-86. 23. Ruth B. McBride, "Accessibility of Serials," Serials Librarian 10 (Fall 1980): 149-60. 24. Cindy and Will Hepfer, "AACR2's Effect on Public Services," Serials Librarian 12, no. 1/2 (1987): 21. 25. Hepfer, 23. 26. Martha E. Williams and Laurence Lannom, "Lack of Standardization of the Journal Title Element in Databases," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 32 (1981): 229-33. 27. Marcia Tuttle, "Serials Control, from an Acquisitions Perspective," Advances in Serials Management 2 (1988): 86. 28. James R. Dwyer, "Evolving Serials, Evolving Access: Bibliographic Control of Serial Literature," Serials Review 12, no. 2/3 (Summer/Fall 1986): 59-64. 29. Barrie T. Stem and Robert M. Campbell, "ADONIS-Publishing Journal Articles on CD-ROM," Advances in Serials Management 3 (1989): 1-2. 30. ThomasJ. DeLoughry, "ACompact-DiskSystemwith Texts of Articles to Be Sold to Libraries by Microfilm Company," The Chronicle of Higher Education 35, no. 19 (18 January 1989): A13. 31. George R. Jaramillo and Jan S. Squire, "Uncover-InstantArticleAccess," Serials Review 16, no. 3 (Fall 1990): 31. 32. Sheila Intner, "Modem Serials Cataloging," Technicalities 10, no. 5 (May 1990): 6.
20. Marjorie E. Murfm, "The Myth of Accessibility: Frustration & Failure in Retrieving Periodicals," Journal of Academic Librarianship 6 (March 1980): 16-19.
33. Sheila S. Intner, "A New Paradigm for Access to Serials," Serials Librarian 19 (1991): 151-61.
21. Barbara P. Pinzelik, "The Serials Maze: Providing Public Service for a Large Serials Collection, ~ Journal of Academic Librarianship 8 (May 1982): 89-94.
34. Mary Elizabeth Clack and John F. Riddick, "The Future of Serials Librarianship: Part 2," Serials Review 16, no. 3 (Fall 1990): 61-67, 80.
42
SERIALSREVIEW
-- G~NDA ANN THORNTON--
Glenda Ann Thornton INTRODUCTION
Thornton is associate director for library services, Auraria Library, University of Colorado at Denver.
- - PHYSICAL ACCESS TO PERIODICAL LITERATURE - -
The debate over how periodical collections are best organized has simmered since at least the 1940s. Unfortunately, experience does not confirm Joseph Borden's statement in 1965 that "the average librarian today does not encounter the problem of whether or not to classify periodicals. The decision will have been made, probably years before the current librarian came on the job..1 In Texas, a considerable amount of time has been invested in this issue throughout the 1980s in an effort to provide the best physical access to periodical collections. In 1988 Robert H. Chang, director of library services at the University of Houston-Downtown, surveyed the practices of all 33 state university libraries in Texas. 2 He found that 15 libraries classified their periodical collections (including one then in the process of changing to classification) and 18 did not. Of the 15 with classified arrangements, 5 had switched to classification sometime within the 1980s. The University of North Texas is one of the 18 institutions in Texas with an alphabetically arranged periodical collection; its collection consists of 309,579 volumes representing 14,797 titles. These volumes are divided into three main periodical collections, which are housed in two of the three libraries on campus. These collections consist of a science, technology, and library and information science collection housed in one building and a general periodical collection and
WINTER 1991
33
a music periodical collection housed in another building. In the fall of 1989, some of the public service librarians at the University of North Texas proposed to the Libraries' administration that the Libraries' periodical collections be classified and integrated with other classified materials. This proposal was prompted not only because of the trend in Texas to switch to classified collections, but also in recognition of longterm problems in locating materials. Classification was offered not only as a solution to these problems but also as a better system of periodical organization. Due to vocal objection to this proposal by other librarians, an ad-hoc committee, composed of supporters of both classified and alphabetical arrangements, was formed to study the feasibility and practicality of periodical classification as well as to suggest alternate solutions for improving user access. THE COMMITTEE'S GOALS Initially, the committee reviewed the access problems that were attributed to the alphabetical arrangement of the periodical collections. These problems were thought to be caused mainly by incomplete conversion to AACR2, title changes, and a decision in the early 1970s to remove the wooden shelf dummies that had existed to assist patrons in locating periodicals (done to save vanishing shelf space). The committee expanded its charge to include a review of periodical organization, identification of the issues, impacts, and costs of a classification project, as well as identification of alternate solutions. The committee then searched the literature for supporting documentation.
THE LITERATURE ON PERIODICAL ORGANIZATION
Since at least the 1940s and for awhile after the publication of AACR2 in 1978, the literature on periodical organization focused upon the merits of alphabetically arranged collections versus classified shelf arrangement. Following the adoption of AACR2, much of the emphasis moved to the effects of the new rules upon alphabetically arranged collections. Little of this literature was based upon research. In 1940 Muller listed the advantages of classification as providing a rough subject arrangement (thought important for non-indexed periodicals), providing a unique place for each volume thereby making shelfreading and reshelving less complicated and more accurate, solving the problems of title changes, and making easier possible future collection reorganiza34
SERIALSREVIEW
tions.3 Muller identifiedthe disadvantages of classification as additional work for both library staff and patrons, indicating that the best solution dependedupon the size of the collection, the type of material (how much indexed vs. non-indexed), and the patience of the library's patrons. This was countered later in 1940 by Prevost, who reported that the Newark, New Jersey Public Library was abandoning classification after 50 years because the class number was so vague as to be of little use. 4 Prevost maintained that indexes were the key to periodical literature, with more indexing a better solutionthan classification, and suggested that journals should be shelved by each successive title, as listed in indexes, not kept together under ancient titles. In 1949 Fussier advocated the "careful observation of the actual literature requirements of research personnel in various disciplines''5 and reported on his study of the use of research literature in chemistry and physics. In a second article, Fussier presented the implications of his research for librarians. 6Because of their importance, serials should be made "as readily available as possible in physical location within the library ''7 with adequate indexing and abstracting facilities provided. He found that"subject classification does not bring together the material required by research personnel in either chemistry or physics "8 and suggested that similar investigations should be conducted for other disciplines. In a detailed abstract of Simpkins' thesis in Serial Slants in 1952, the serials organization of the Linda Hall Library, founded in 1945, was described. 9 The collection was arranged alphabetically by current title with no attempt to keep volumes together when titles changed. This arrangement was based upon the conclusion that, except for very broad subject groupings, subject classification of serial titles had little value. However, Whetstone's 1959 survey of serial practices of 16 university libraries, with collections between 4,000 and 6,000 titles, found that 12 classified all periodicals, two classified some titles, and two classified none of their titles.i° The first real effort to debate the advantages and disadvantages ofclassifiedperiodicalsversusalphabetical arrangement was made by Borden. 11The advantages of an alphabetical arrangement were listed as less costly processing, ease of working with an alphabetical shelf list, and quicker retrieval because call numbers did not have to be identified and periodicals were not scattered among other classified materials. The problems caused by title changes and titles beginning with generic terms such as "bulletin," "proceedings, .... transactions," and "journal of .... " were listed as major disadvantages. Classification was touted as solving shelving problems created by title changes, scattering periodicals with similar titles thus preventing confusion, and providing -- GLENDAANN THORNTON
some subject access to non-indexed periodicals. The disadvantages were listed as increased processing cost, possibly increased time needed for locating materials, and, if integrated with book collections, the increased quantity of materials to shift to accommodate serial growth. Borden ended by asserting that the needs of the individual library's users should be an important factor in determining the method of organization. To supplement Borden's article, PiersonTMoffered additional discussion on periodical organization, includingthe merits of collocation of current and bound periodical volumes, the problems of dealing with serials such as symposia, annual reports, and proceedings, and the physical arrangement of microforms. Pierson introduced the idea that research libraries may have a greater need for classified collections while alphabetical organization might better serve lower levels of libraries. After summarizing the work of Borden, Pierson, Whetstone, and others, Kuhn13 stated that "in the case of the research library, I think librarians could agree that the greater the number of scholarly periodicals, the greater the percentage of periodicals capable of fairly specific classification and thus capable of being shelved closer together."14 From this assumption, he concluded that "in the larger library there will be a greater number of periodicals not indexed in the currently available indexingmedia" and, since a greater number of other serials would already be classified, "the user of the research library will probably find the collection more serviceable if it is classified." 1~ In 1978 Davidson stated that the most frequent method of periodical organization was alphabetical by title and that it was the method most favored by patrons. 16 Wright's study of 147 moderate-sized, academic libraries found alphabetical arrangement of bound and current periodical collections the most common. 17 She reported that, while libraries with alphabetical collections were more likely to switch to classified arrangement (15 libraries indicated a switch from alphabetical arrangement), four libraries had switched from call number order to alphabetical. She found a positive correlation between size of holdings and the use of classification for periodicals, with larger collections more likely to be classified. Smith provided in her 1978 article persuasive arguments for the classification of periodicals, concluding that classification seemed to be winning and that librarians were realizing the greater need for classification for higher level library use) 8 Roth agreed that Smith had valid points for classification of serials, but stated that "these points are truly insignificant when compared with the tremendous inconvenience caused to serious researchers by a classified collection."19 Roth provided a list of procedures for science librarians to - - PItYSmAL ACCESS TO PERIODICAL LITERATURE - -
follow to improve physical access to periodical collections. In 1980 Muffin reported the results of her research study on patron success in retrieving periodicals from an alphabetically arranged periodical collection of 8,000 subscriptions. 2° She found that 61 percent of the subjects in her study failed to find at least one of five citations. Increased public service for serials was suggested as one of several remedies. Pinzelik described at least 24 possible decisions that a patron might need to make in order to locate serials in a large collection (regardless of organization) and suggested six ways a library might improve physical access, including better bibliographic instruction, shelf dummies, and the availability of serial specialists. 21 Kovacic reviewed the arguments both for and against classification of serials and discussed the role of indexing and abstracting services in accessing periodical literature) 2 She pointed out that, while effective, they are not integrated into the mainstream manual ~ o n l i n e catalogs. As a result, she reported that some libraries actually catalog individual periodical articles of interest to their users. In 1986 McBride reviewed again the arguments concerning periodical organization and reported that "it is generally agreed that while smaller libraries can avoid classifying and the costs involved, larger libraries will probably have to classify. ''2a
AACR2
AND S E R I A L S O R G A N I Z A T I O N
After 1978, much of the literature on serials highlighted the problems of alphabetically arranged collections caused by the cataloging rule changes. Bibliographically, AACR2 replaced complex corporate main entries for serials with more straightforward title main entries as well as providing for alternate access points. Although expensive to implement, after the Library of Congress and a number of the major bibliographic utilities adopted AACR2, few libraries could afford not to implement the new standard. 24 However, libraries with alphabetically arranged periodical collections, the very type of shelf arrangement that the new rules would improve, found themselves facing a dilemma. "It is one thing to shift a lot of catalog cards around and another to have to re-mark and relocate a large number of bound volumes. Anything less, however, was perceived to be a real disservice to library users. Alphabetical arrangements lost much of their user friendliness when old titles were left under AACR corporate headings."25 This problem as well as others began to grow as the pace of serial publishing exploded. Old standard titles split into multiple titles. Title changes seemed to WINTER 1991
35
become more frequent as publishers modernized their products' market appeal. Subject specialties seemed to spring up over night leading to yet more new titles. Indexing and abstracting services grew in relationship to the growth in periodical literature. Unfortunately for libraries, the producers of some of these indexes did not use standard cataloging rules for determining bibliographic entries. Williams and Lannom reported that for 11 selected journals in eight DIALOG files there were 189 forms of the 11 titles. 26In many large libraries with titles in the thousands and volumes in the hundreds of thousands, alphabetical arrangements were breaking down and frequently the remedy selected was the classification of periodical collections.27 During the late 1970s and 1980s, computers and automationbegan to consume the energies and interests of many librarians and the debate over the physical arrangement ofperiodicalcoliections gradually evolved into a more general call for improved access to periodical literature. 2s However, it is obvious that the issue of physical organization has never been fully researched or resolved.
be done after all titles were classified? If a massive reshelving project was preferred, should Bibliographic Control refrain from labeling all 309,000+ volumes until time for the reshelving project? .
Would the call number on the spine consist of only the classification number (which is easy to mass produce) or would it also include volume and year? If volume or year were not included, it would be important not to cover this information on spines--which might result in the placement of labels on spines at varying heights from the bottom of the volumes, primarily an aesthetic consideration.
.
Would current issues be classified or arranged alphabetically in current periodical areas?
.
Should spine title corrections (resulting from cataloging rule changes) even be made? If so, should titles be corrected as volumes moved through processing, or could the project be completed without moving volumes until time for reshelving?
.
How would titles be handled when classification would relocate them to other collections?
8.
How would periodicals in microform be handled?
9.
How would this project be staffed?
ISSUES AND
IMPACTS OF A CLASSIFICATION PROJECT
When applied to the University of North Texas Libraries, little of this information was helpful in determining whether or not the periodical collections should be classified. The most consistent advice was that a library should examine its own situation before selecting a periodical shelving solution. Because of the size of the University Libraries' collections and with so little evidence as to the benefits of classification, no recommendation could be made without examination of costs, public relations impact, human resource requirements, impact on current workload, future technological advances, and alternate solutions. Before adequate costs or impacts could be estimated for classifying periodicals at the University of North Texas, it was determined that the following decisions would need to be made: .
.
3.
36
Would the classification project begin with the "A" titles and continue through the "Z"s ? Or would each separate collection be processed one at a time? Would periodical titles be integrated with other materials or retained in separate periodical collections? If integrated, would periodicals be reshelved as classified, or would a massive reshelving project SERIALSREVIEW
a. b.
c.
Could a special project crew be hired? If a special crew could not be hired, how much time could Bibliographic Control feasibly devote to this project? How would this affect the cataloging of new periodicals, monographic series, and other continuations? How long would the project take given this approach and how would this time frame affect other decisions? How would the cost of supplies and labor affect other library priorities such as retrospective conversion?
10. Should users be surveyed concerning their preferences? ESTIMATED COSTS OF A CLASSIFICATIONPROJECT Every effort was made to accurately estimate the costs of a classification project based upon the most likely set of assumptions. These estimates were corn- - GLENDA ANN THORNTON
Sidebar 1: N A S I G Q U E S T I O N N A I R E
CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE 1.
.
IS YOUR LIBRARY'S PERIODICAL COLLECTION ARRANGED: A. Alphabetically by title?
YES
NO
B. By Classification Number?
YES
NO
A.
IF ALPHABETICAL, DO YOU PLAN TO CLASSIFY THE PERIODICAL COLLECTION? YES NO
B.
IF THERE ARE NO PLANS, ARE THERE PRESSURES TO CLASSIFY THE PERIODICAL COLLECTION? YES NO
3.
IF CLASSIFIED, DO YOU PLAN TO SWITCH TO AN ALPHABETICAL ARRANGEMENT? YES NO
4.
IF CLASSIFIED, ARE YOUR SERIALS INTER-SHELVED WITH MONOGRAPHS? YES NO
.
ARE YOUR BOUND ISSUES AND CURRENT ISSUES SHELVED (FILED) BY THE SAME LOCATION SCHEME? (CIRCLE LETTER) A. BOTH CLASSIFIED
B. BOTH ALPHABETICAL
C. CURRENT ALPHABETICAL, BOUND CLASSIFIED
D. OTHER
.
ARE RECENT YEARS (LAST 5-10 YEARS) SHELVED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN OTHER OLDER VOLUMES (OLDER THAN 10 YEARS)? YES NO
.
ARE THERE VARIATIONS IN SHELVING ARRANGEMENTS ON YOUR CAMPUS? (EX. MAIN LIBRARY CLASSIFIED, BRANCH LIBRARIES ALPHABETICAL, ETC.) YES NO
8.
.
ARE YOU CURRENTLY PURCHASING ANY ELECTRONIC JOURNALS? A.
ONLINE DELIVERY?
YES
NO
B.
OTHER FORMAT: FLOPPY, ETC.?
YES
NO
ARE YOU PROVIDING ARTICLE-LEVEL ACCESS TO PERIODICALS VIA YOUR ONLINE SYSTEM? YES NO
pared to the experiences of another Texas academic library where the decision to classify had been made in 1982. Based upon the assumptions and the comparison, it was estimated that completing the basic project (excluding reshelving) would take at least three years, if 50 hours per week were devoted to the project. P I t Y S I C A L ACCESS TO P E m O D I C A L L I T E R A T U R E - -
Assuming three years at 50 hours per week, the basic project would require at least 7,500 hours. Labor and supplies were estimated at approximately $100,000. When these estimates were presented to the Libraries' administration, it was determined that this project
WINTER 1991
37
would not be funded. This decision necessitated a closer look at the alternate solutions.
ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS FOR IMPROVING ACCESS TO PERIODICALS
As charged, the committee presented a set of alternate solutions. No attempt was made to compute the cost of these suggestions: .
Reinstate a system of shelf dummies indicating correct shelving location for titles shelved contrary to what patrons and library staff members might expect. Assign responsibility for creating and maintaining this system to appropriate unit.
.
Identify titles causing problems and find individual solutions. Patrons, public service staff, and interlibrary loan are all sources for determination of problem titles.
.
Hold in-house seminars for librarians and staff members to update them on serials cataloging rules and interpreting the serials records in the online catalog. Maintain a bibliographic instruction program for library patrons.
.
Develop printed guides for abstracting and indexing tools listing indexed subscriptions owned by the library. These guides could include location information as specific as building, building level, and stack numbers.
.
Use the online catalog to help solve location problems initially by adding "shelved as" notes. Explore other ways of providing location and access information in the automated system.
.
Capture classification information as subscriptions are received and cataloged or when updated due to other bibliographic work such as recording title changes, should classification become feasible in the future.
.
Determine how each specific collection at the institution might best be arranged. Some collections might benefit from classification, while others would be better served arranged alphabetically by title.
38
SERIALS REVIEW
IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS
Since the charge of the original committee was primarily to examine the feasibility of a classification project, the alternate solutions were not initially studied in detail. However, because a classification project was not approved, several of the alternate solutions were acted upon immediately and others were assigned to another ad-hoc committee charged with a thorough examination of ways to improve the alphabetical organization of the periodicals collections. The suggestion for the development of printed guides with the location of indexed titles and the suggestion that each collection might benefit from a different organization were vetoed. The University of North Texas is currently implementing the VTLS Serials Control Module and immediate attention was given to adding "shelved as" notes to the online public access catalog. In-house seminars were developed for staff members to instruct them in the interpretation of the serials records in the online catalog. Titles identified by the public service librarians as the most difficult to locate were addressed on an individual basis. The subsequent ad-hoc committee has also recommended a systematic conversion of all serial cataloging records to AACR2 rules and is currently working out the related workflows. So far, no effort has been made to assess the effect these changes have made upon physical access to the Libraries' periodical collections.
NASIG WORKSHOP DEVELOPED TO GENERATE IDEAS Because there are so few ideas on improving physical access to periodical collections other than through classification, this topic was proposed and accepted as a workshop for the Fifth Annual NASIG Conference held in 1990. The three main objectives for the workshop were 1) to share information about the University of North Texas experience, 2) to solicit additional ideas for improving physical access to periodical collections, and 3) to find out what other libraries were doing. The workshop was given twice, with a total of 105 attending. An easy-to-complete questionnaire was distributed at the beginning of each workshop (see sidebar 1). The questionnaire was designed to stimulate discussion as well as to determine how other libraries were managing their periodical collections. The results were collected, tabulated, and shared during each workshop. When the questionnaire results were combined and retabulated for this article, six institutions were identified that had multiple participants. These individuals were subsequently contacted and the - - GLFA'DAANN THORNTON
duplicate responses were removed. The questionnaire and the adjusted tabulated results are discussed below and displayed in sidebar 2. QUESTIONNAIRE
RESULTS
Although the questionnaire was never intended as a statistical representation of library practice, the interest in the workshop topic led to an examination of the registration list. Of the 105 individuals registered for the workshop, 90 individuals represented college and university libraries, four represented public libraries, and six others represented subscription agents, publishers, or special libraries. According to the 19901991 American LibraryDirectory, 31 of these libraries have fewer than 4,000 current periodical titles, 20 have collections between 4,001 and 9,999 titles, 30 have collectionsbetween 10,000 and 24,999 titles, and seven have collections of 25,000 or more titles. Eighty-seven participants completed questionnaires, but a total of seven duplicated responses were subsequently removed, leaving 80 useable, completed questionnaires. Of those 80 completed questionnaires, 41 percent indicated their libraries currently have alphabetically arranged periodical collections, 53 percent have classified collections, and 6 percent use both methods. Of those with alphabetical collections, 55 percent are currently planning to switch to a classified arrangement. However, of the five libraries with both systems in use, four report no plans or pressure to classify the entire periodical collection. Of the 15 libraries with alphabetical collections but no plans to classify, eight reported pressure to do so. No library reported current plans to switch from a classified arrangement to alphabetical. However, one respondent indicated that a switch from a classified to an alphabetical arrangement had recently occurred and another indicated that his institution's branch librarians were pressuring the central cataloging department to de-classify branch periodicals. The remaining questions dealt with various shelving arrangements and indicated a wide variety of methods. In some cases the answers do not add up to the totals reported earlier--presumably representing multiple methods at the same institution. For example, while 42 libraries reported having classified collections, 28 reported that these titles were integrated with monographs, 18 reported that they were not, and four reported mixed methods. Additionally, for those 42 libraries with classified collections, 25 of them continued to shelve current issues alphabetically. Thirty-two reported variations in shelving methods at their own institutions and 19 reported that volumes more than ten years old were separated from current titles and shelved in other locations or in remote storage. - - PHYSICAL ACCESS TO PERIODICAL LITERATLmlg - -
The final questions concerned some current trends in serials librarianship. These questions were included to evoke comment from workshop participants on how future developments might affect organization of periodical collections. Six libraries indicated that they are purchasing online electronic journals while 16 reported purchasing electronicjournals in other formats. Thirteen are providing article-level access to periodicals via their online systems and two reported having or planning for the CARL "UNCOVER" database.
WORKSHOP IDEAS FOR IMPROVING
PHYSICAL ACCESS TO PERIODICALS Workshop participants suggested the following ideas for improving physical access to periodical collections: 1) increase public service to periodicals, perhaps relocating the serials department so that it would be responsible for this function, 2) create a current is'Sue reading room, which might include everything up to three years old, 3) add building level and stack numbers to existing periodical holdings lists, 4) add more location notes to online catalogs, and 5) use different colored classification labels to help library staff quickly move used materials back to the proper location and also to help librarians explain to patrons which items are periodicals (usually non-circulating) and which are monographs. While all are valid and important points, it is striking that none of these ideas are particularly innovative or new. As the review of the literature on periodical organization has demonstrated, many of these suggestions have been around for fifty years; however, almost no research has been conducted to verify that any of these ideas are beneficial! THE FtrrURE Was the decision not to classify the periodical collection at the University of North Texas shortsighted? Since it is apparent that neither organizational scheme solves all of the problems of accessing periodical literature and no evidence exists to prove the superiority of either scheme, this author thinks not. Perhaps this rather old stalemate simply must await further research as well as technological innovations. Fortunately, a number of encouraging developments may eliminate the need for any library to consider switchingfrom one shelving scheme to another in the near future. These innovations also increase the options for improving bibliographic as well as physical access to periodicals. A number of these initiatives are aimed at providing electronic storage and retrieval opWINTER 1991
39
Sidebar 2: COMBINED RESPONSES TO JUNE 1990 NASIG WORKSHOP QUESTIONNAIRE
.
IS YOUR LIBRARY'S PERIODICAL COLLECTION ARRANGED: A. Alphabetically by title? YES--33 B. By Classification Number? YES--42* (*Includes one that was then switching to classified) C.
.
A.
Both Systems in Use
YES--5
IF ALPHABETICAL, DO YOU PLAN* TO CLASSIFY THE PERIODICAL COLLECTION? (*maybe, under serious investigation, etc.) YES--18 If both systems were in use (usually main library classified, some branches alphabetical), librarians reported the following: NO PLANS, NO PRESSURE TO CLASSIFY. . . . . . 4 NO PLANS, PRESSURES EXIST TO CLASSIFY--1
B.
IF THERE ARE NO PLANS, ARE THERE PRESSURES TO CLASSIFY THE PERIODICAL COLLECTION? YES--8 (Of these 8, 2 indicated the pressure was internal [from technical services] and 1 indicated both pressure for and against this project.)
3.
IF CLASSIFIED, DO YOU PLAN TO SWITCH TO AN ALPHABETICAL ARRANGEMENT? One respondent indicated a switch from classified to alphabetical occurred the previous year; another that some branch librarians at their institution were pressuring central cataloging to de-elassify periodicals.
.
IF CLASSIFIED, ARE YOUR SERIALS INTER-SHELVED WITH MONOGRAPHS? YES--28 NO---18 MIXED METHODS--4* (*Mainly institutions with main library and branches)
40
.
ARE YOUR BOUND ISSUES AND CURRENT ISSUES SHELVED (FILED) BY THE SAME LOCATION SCHEME? A. BOTH CLASSIFIED--17 B. BOTH ALPHABETICAL--32 C. CURRENT ALPHABETICAL, BOUND CLASSIFIED--25 D. OTHER-3
.
ARE RECENT YEARS (LAST 5-10 YEARS) SHELVED IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN OTHER OLDER VOLUMES (OLDER THAN 10 YEARS)? YES--19 NO---48 SELECTED TITLES ONLY---ll NO RESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
SERIALSREVIEW
-- GLENDA ANN
THORNTON
7.
.
.
ARE THERE VARIATIONS IN SHELVING ARRANGEMENTS ON YOUR CAMPUS? (EX. MAIN LIBRARY CLASSIFIED, BRANCH LIBRARIES ALPHABETICAL, ETC.) YES--32 NO---47 N/A-- 1 ARE YOU CURRENTLY PURCHASING ANY ELECTRONIC JOURNALS? A. ONLINE DELIVERY? YES--6 B. OTHER FORMAT: FLOPPY, ETC.? YES--16 ARE YOU PROVIDING ARTICLE-LEVEL ACCESS TO PERIODICALS VIA YOUR ONLINE SYSTEM? YES--13 PLANNING FOR OR HAVE CARL ACCESS-- 2
tions for periodical literature. One of the first, the ADONIS project, was initiated "by four individual publishers of major scientific, technical and medical journals" as a "trial document delivery service" that "supplies articles from over 200 biomedical journals published in 1987 and 1988 on CD-ROM."29 University Microfilms has developed a similar CD-ROM product, Business Periodicals Ondisc, that is also a full-text database of articles from about 300 business and management journals. 3° As publishers and librarians gain experience with full-text electronic storage and retrieval, no doubt many new products and developments will be forthcoming. Librarians are responsible for one of the most exciting recent innovations. The Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries, or CARL, has developed and begun to market the "UNCOVER" database, which currently provides article-level "access to over 500,000 articles from over 7,500 journal titles."31 Plans are underway to develop full-text retrieval with greatly improved document delivery options. This database is available on a subscription basis to other libraries. Complimenting these developments, Sheila Intner, associate professor of library and information science at Simmons College, has proposed that individual journal volumes be treated as monographic units with bibliographic access provided for authors and titles of important articles, editors, column editors, and other elements considered important to individual institutions? 2 As she points out, some studies show that as much as 93 percent of library use in some disciplines is journal literature--rather than monographic materials, which receive much more detailed cataloging. Intner calls this idea dumping the "Title Theory" of serials cataloging and replacing it with the "One Work Equals One Bibliographic Unit Theory. ,,33Intner believes that the reward for adopting such a paradigm would be to achieve maximum use of existing collections)4
- -
PHYSICALACCESSTO PERIODICALLITERATURE--
CONCLUSION Perhaps those libraries with subscriptions in the thousands could better spend their limited resources to improve access to periodical literature by investing in these new technologies rather than by reprocessing already processed materials. Article-level access, unbundled periodicals, and improved document delivery capability may indeed solve the dilemma of how best to organize periodical literature. Librarians will, however, find challenge in a new dilemma that approaches on the horizon. We must soon face the tough question of whether or not improved access will replace the need for ownership!
NOTES 1. Joseph C. Borden, "The Advantages and Disadvantages of a Classified Periodicals Collection," Library Resources and Technical Services 9 (Winter 1965): 126. 2. Robert H. Chang, " T h e Handling of Periodical Collections in Texas State University Libraries" (A Survey Conducted by University of Houston-Downtown, 1988), 2-3. 3. Hans Muller, "Why Classify Periodicals?" Wilson Library Bulletin 14 (June 1940): 758-59. 4. Marie Prevost, "Why Classify Periodicals?" Wilson Library Bulletin 15 (September 1940): 85. 5. Herman H. Fussier, "Characteristics of the Research Literature Used by Chemists and Physicists in the United States [Part I]," Library Quarterly 19 (January 1949): 20. 6. Herman H. Fussier, "Characteristics of the Research Literature Used by Chemists and Physicists in the United States, Part II," Library Quarterly 19 (April 1949): 119-43. WINTER 1991
41
7.
Fussier, 137.
8.
Fussier, 137.
9. Edgar G. Simpkins, A Study of Serials Processing (MS in LS thesis, Western Reserve University, 1951), abstracted in Serials Slants 2, no. 1 (January 1952): 6-17. 10. Gloria Whetstone, "Serials Practices in Selected College and University Libraries," Library Resources & Technical Services 5 (Fall 1961): 284-90. 11. Borden, 122-26. 12. Robert M. Pierson, "Where Shall We Shelve Bound Periodicals? Further Notes, "Library Resources & Technical Services 10 (Summer 1966): 290-94. 13. Warren B. Kuhn, "Service," in Serial Publications in Large Libraries, ed. by Walter C. Allen. (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science, 1970). 14. Kuhn, 181. 15. Kuhn, 181. 16. Donald E. Davidson, The Periodical Collection, 2d ed. (Boulder: Westview Press, 1978). 17. Geraldine M. Wright, "Current Trends in Periodical Collections," College and Research Libraries 38 (May 1977): 234-40. 18. Lynn S. Smith, "To Classify or Not to Classify," Serials Librarian 2 (Summer 1978): 371-85. 19. Dana Lincoln Roth, "To Classify or Not to Classify...A Rejoinder," Serials Librarian 5 (Fall 1980): 83.
22. Ellen Siegel Kovacie, "Serials Cataloging: What It Is, How It's Done, Why It's Done That Way," Serials Review 11, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 77-86. 23. Ruth B. McBride, "Accessibility of Serials," Serials Librarian 10 (Fall 1980): 149-60. 24. Cindy and Will Hepfer, "AACR2's Effect on Public Services," Serials Librarian 12, no. 1/2 (1987): 21. 25. Hepfer, 23. 26. Martha E. Williams and Laurence Lannom, "Lack of Standardization of the Journal Title Element in Databases," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 32 (1981): 229-33. 27. Marcia Tuttle, "Serials Control, from an Acquisitions Perspective," Advances in Serials Management 2 (1988): 86. 28. James R. Dwyer, "Evolving Serials, Evolving Access: Bibliographic Control of Serial Literature," Serials Review 12, no. 2/3 (Summer/Fall 1986): 59-64. 29. Barrie T. Stem and Robert M. Campbell, "ADONIS-Publishing Journal Articles on CD-ROM," Advances in Serials Management 3 (1989): 1-2. 30. ThomasJ. DeLoughry, "ACompact-DiskSystemwith Texts of Articles to Be Sold to Libraries by Microfilm Company," The Chronicle of Higher Education 35, no. 19 (18 January 1989): A13. 31. George R. Jaramillo and Jan S. Squire, "Uncover-InstantArticleAccess," Serials Review 16, no. 3 (Fall 1990): 31. 32. Sheila Intner, "Modem Serials Cataloging," Technicalities 10, no. 5 (May 1990): 6.
20. Marjorie E. Murfm, "The Myth of Accessibility: Frustration & Failure in Retrieving Periodicals," Journal of Academic Librarianship 6 (March 1980): 16-19.
33. Sheila S. Intner, "A New Paradigm for Access to Serials," Serials Librarian 19 (1991): 151-61.
21. Barbara P. Pinzelik, "The Serials Maze: Providing Public Service for a Large Serials Collection, ~ Journal of Academic Librarianship 8 (May 1982): 89-94.
34. Mary Elizabeth Clack and John F. Riddick, "The Future of Serials Librarianship: Part 2," Serials Review 16, no. 3 (Fall 1990): 61-67, 80.
42
SERIALSREVIEW
-- G~NDA ANN THORNTON--